6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine intention in Benin in 2021: a cross-sectional study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The development of COVID-19 vaccines has brought considerable hope for the control of the pandemic. With a view to promoting good vaccine coverage, this study aimed to measure vaccine intention against COVID-19 and to understand the factors that promote it.

          Method

          In April 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional and analytical study at the national level through a telephone survey of Beninese aged 18 years or older. We used a marginal quota sampling method (n=865) according to age, gender, and department. We constructed the questionnaire using a theoretical framework of health intention. We determined the factors associated with intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 in Benin using a multinomial logistic regression at the 5% significance level.

          Results

          The intention to vaccinate was 64.7%; 10.9% of the population were hesitant, and 24.4% did not want to vaccinate. Thinking that it was important to get vaccinated (AOR=0.274; CI=0.118-0.638) or that getting vaccinated will help protect loved ones from the virus (AOR=0.399; CI=0.205-0.775) increased the intention to vaccinate. Having a high level of education (AOR=1.988; CI=1.134-3.484), thinking that the vaccine could put one's health at risk (AOR=2.259; CI=1.114-4.578), and hearing something negative about the vaccine (AOR=1.765; CI=1.059-2.941) reduced intention to vaccinate. In addition, believing that the creators of the vaccine had ensured its safety (AOR=0.209; CI=0.101-0.430), and believing that it was unlikely to be infected after vaccination (AOR=0.359; CI=0.183-0.703) decreased hesitancy in favour of the intention to vaccinate.

          Conclusion

          In April 2021, vaccine intention was high, but maintaining this high rate requires building confidence in the vaccine and combating misinformation about the vaccine.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Vaccine hesitancy: the next challenge in the fight against COVID-19

          Vaccine hesitancy remains a barrier to full population inoculation against highly infectious diseases. Coincident with the rapid developments of COVID-19 vaccines globally, concerns about the safety of such a vaccine could contribute to vaccine hesitancy. We analyzed 1941 anonymous questionnaires completed by healthcare workers and members of the general Israeli population, regarding acceptance of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. Our results indicate that healthcare staff involved in the care of COVID-19 positive patients, and individuals considering themselves at risk of disease, were more likely to self-report acquiescence to COVID-19 vaccination if and when available. In contrast, parents, nurses, and medical workers not caring for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients expressed higher levels of vaccine hesitancy. Interventional educational campaigns targeted towards populations at risk of vaccine hesitancy are therefore urgently needed to combat misinformation and avoid low inoculation rates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

            Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Acceptability of a COVID-19 Vaccine among Adults in the United States: How Many People Would Get Vaccinated?

              Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Several prophylactic vaccines against COVID-19 are currently in development, yet little is known about people’s acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine. Methods We conducted an online survey of adults ages 18 and older in the United States (n=2,006) in May 2020. Multivariable relative risk regression identified correlates of participants’ willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., vaccine acceptability). Results Overall, 69% of participants were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they thought their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination (RR=1.73, 95% CI: 1.49–2.02) or if they were moderate (RR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16) or liberal (RR=1.14, 95% CI: 1.07–1.22) in their political leaning. Participants were also more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they reported higher levels of perceived likelihood getting a COVID-19 infection in the future (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.09), perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (RR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.04–1.11), or perceived effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine (RR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.40–1.52). Participants were less likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they were non-Latinx black (RR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.74–0.90) or reported a higher level of perceived potential vaccine harms (RR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.98). Conclusions Many adults are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, though acceptability should be monitored as vaccine development continues. Our findings can help guide future efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (and uptake if a vaccine becomes available).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Vaccine X
                Vaccine X
                Vaccine: X
                The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                2590-1362
                3 November 2022
                3 November 2022
                : 100237
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre de Recherche en Reproduction Humaine et en Démographie (CERRHUD), Cotonou, Benin
                [b ]Institute of Health and Development (ISED), Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal
                [c ]Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Odontology Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal
                [d ]IRD, French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development and Université Paris CIté, Inserm ERL 1244, 45 rue des Saints-Pères, 75006 Paris, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Centre de Recherche en Reproduction Humaine et en Démographie (CERRHUD), Cotonou, Benin
                Article
                S2590-1362(22)00097-3 100237
                10.1016/j.jvacx.2022.100237
                9632262
                1d8e6c31-cb78-405c-aff0-89ffcf9c040f
                © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 10 July 2022
                : 1 November 2022
                : 2 November 2022
                Categories
                Article

                benin,covid-19,intention,vaccine
                benin, covid-19, intention, vaccine

                Comments

                Comment on this article